Readers’ letters: What has the BBC ever done for Scotland?

The BBC have gone one better this year, by blanking the games totally, bar a livestream from BBC Alba, which switches abruptly between cameras at the venues. There is a Gaelic commentary, but no English subtitles. While this is a valiant effort by the Alba team, and much appreciated, it falls short of proper programming led by studio-based presenters with a listed schedule of events and times.

It’s a disgrace that the BBC couldn’t find the money to cover the Games, the only such multi-discipline event that l can think of where Scotland competes in its own right. Maybe the fact that it is a reduced event, only happening because it was rescued and paid for by Glasgow with no government support, and is happening some 220 miles north of No 10 North, is relevant to their decision.

A reported bid by TNT of £5 million secured the broadcast rights. To put this in context, the BBC pays £180m to show (English Premier League) Match of the Day highlights. Scotland gets a poor and worsening deal for their £311m annual licence fees; a rubbish news service and decreasing Scottish-made content.

Having lost 500,000 licence-payers last year, the BBC are petrified of losing any more. So they have a current (and you can imagine expensive) all-pervasive advertising campaign: “What has the BBC ever done for me?” In Scotland, the answer is “very little”.

Ken Gow, Banchory, Aberdeenshire

Lost in translation

Josh Kerr has become the first Scottish athlete ever to hold the world record for the mile. He is now competing at the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow – going for gold tonight – yet anyone hoping to hear live TV commentary of his races in English on our national broadcaster is out of luck.

Instead, the BBC has entrusted its principal coverage to BBC Alba. Gaelic is a treasured part of Scotland’s heritage and deserves to flourish, but this seems a curious way of promoting it. It is rather like deciding that Wimbledon tennis commentary should be in Latin. Admirably authentic, perhaps, but not especially practical.

One also cannot help wondering whether the number of people involved in producing BBC Alba’s coverage is beginning to rival the number of viewers who can actually understand every word of the Gaelic commentary.

The real losers are almost certainly the athletes. Many withdrew from the Games at the eleventh hour, and it may be that the prospect of limited mainstream television exposure was a factor. They have become the collateral damage of a broadcasting decision that seems to place symbolism ahead of common sense.

It is extraordinary that we cannot hear English commentary of Josh Kerr’s Commonwealth Games exploits on BBC television. As Scotland’s first world-record holder in the mile, he deserves to be heard by the widest possible audience. And by all means celebrate Scotland’s Gaelic heritage – but perhaps not by making the rest of us feel we ought to have revised for Higher Gaelic before switching on the television.

Hugh Cameron Shields, Harrow, London

Wildlife toll

A red squirrel and his mate, the capercaillie, walked into an insurance office the other day. Their homes and their young had been destroyed by a wildfire. They asked, quite plainly, if anyone could help.

“Whereabouts?”

“Cairngorms.”

“Sorry, mate, can’t do anything.”

“But we’re endangered species.”

“You’re not covered.”

“Why not?”

“You’re not human,” the clerk said – then, after a moment’s thought, added: “Have you tried Scottish Wildlife? Or the neighbours? I hear they like you fluffy, feathery types. Nice bit of potato and leek soup – that’s the stuff for you!”

There is no insurance to cover the losses of the creatures devastated by the wildfire, including the red squirrels and the capercaillies, amongst others. And while I am thankful that the cost to humans – especially emergency crews – was smaller than feared, now is the time to look at other, perhaps irreplaceable, losses. Charities will do what they can to help rebuild, but the habitat is gone – not forever, but for decades, by which time, for some, it may be too late.

The squirrel and the capercaillie won’t be filing a claim. They will simply try to survive. The question is whether we, the country who claims to care about our natural heritage, will continue to shrug and redirect responsibility, or whether we will finally treat wildlife protection as part of our own safety, not an afterthought.

Judith Campbell, Portree, Isle of Skye

Controlled burning

Controlled burning like muirburn was used centuries ago by indigenous Americans like the Coast Miwok to manage Californian Redwoods. Their bark is fire resistant and they are stimulated to sprout when ground close to them is superficially burned.

I have never visited California but as an entomologist know about another fire-related natural phenomenon, insects called Microsania. They are known as smoke flies, because they are attracted to it. I once caught them flying above a roadside fire in Helensburgh.

Redwood management by fire was banned in 1850. Wildfires in California are on the rampage today. Let’s hope that we don't go down that road and make the same kind of mistake by ignoring those who have been successfully managing our moorlands for generations, as Alistair Carmichael points out (Perspective, 31 July).

Microsania may even become a pest. A trivial issue, of course, particularly as they don’t bite, but good for biodiversity, I suppose!

Hugh Pennington, Aberdeen

Back to basics

I can't help thinking that if the recent fires in the Cairngorms had happened on Arthur’s Seat, the Pentlands or Campsie Fells the Scottish government would have acted more quickly. Hopefully last week’s events have persuaded them to re-introduce former countryside fire and flood protection land management and drainage practices.

Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire

Nuclear warning

Next week marks the anniversary of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshoma and Nagasaki. We have just seen the effects of an earthquake in the same country.

Wildfires are devastating parts of France and Spain and in the last ten days we have seen fires in the Conwy Valley in North Wales and the Cairngorms here.

The old cliche “fiddling while Rome burns” comes to mind: this week the new Prime Minister was in Barrow-in-Furness to announce an additional £8 billion for the over-budget overdue Dreadnought replacement for Trident, which we are told is way past retirement. Alarmingly there is now a fire in Dunwich Heath in Suffolk, not far from the Sizewell nuclear power station. Draw your own conclusions about what could happen.

Unlike Japan we have never seen the effects of nuclear weapons. We have no real proof that Trudent has stopped any wars or indeed the long-anticipated Russian invasion.

Marjorie Ellis Thompson, Edinburgh

Young farmers

Does the Scottish government genuinely want to support Scotland’s red meat sector? Ministers continue to claim they are pushing back against the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations to reduce cattle and sheep numbers, yet their approach to the Less Favoured Area Support Scheme (LFASS) contradicts those claims.

The Scottish government’s stance on LFASS flies in the face of its stated support for livestock farming in our upland areas. As farmers grow older, many are no longer physically able to undertake demanding tasks such as calving cows in the middle of the night. We therefore need more young people entering the industry, bringing with them the enthusiasm, energy and ability to carry out this essential work.

Instead, the current LFASS rules effectively lock young entrants out and place them at a significant disadvantage. They offer little meaningful encouragement or support for anyone wishing to establish a breeding flock or herd. Even if young farmers do manage to get started, they often lack the financial backing to compete at the livestock mart against established farmers with greater financial security. Quite simply, it is not a level playing field.

Many older farmers who have reduced their livestock numbers but continue to receive high LFASS payments privately acknowledge that the system is unfair. This scheme, like many other Scottish government and NatureScot policies, no longer reflects today’s farming realities.

To make matters worse, LFASS payments are still calculated using breeding stock data from 2009 – figures that are now 17 years out of date. Farms that have invested in expanding their breeding flocks or herds since then continue to receive payments based on historical data rather than their current contribution to livestock production.

Surely it is time the Scottish government was held to account and introduced a support scheme that genuinely encourages the next generation of livestock farmers, rather than penalising them at every opportunity.

Conrad Ritchie, Fraserburgh, Aberdeenshire

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won’t print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, and in the body of the email – no attachments – and avoid ‘Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters’ or similar in your subject line. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading. No poems.